Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Council weighs five-year 0.81-mill bicycle and pedestrian levy after committee recommendation
Summary
Council committees recommended placing a five-year, 0.81-mill bicycle and pedestrian levy on the ballot; members debated timing and cost while a resident raised strong objections to the project’s estimated $1.8 million price tag.
A council committee on May 4 recommended that South Russell voters be asked to approve a five-year, 0.81-mill levy to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements, a proposal that drew mixed reactions from council members and a sharply critical public comment.
The Safe Bicycle and Pedestrian Transport Committee voted to ask council to place the levy on the ballot; a committee member leading that discussion told council the levy would be for five years at 0.81 mills, described in committee discussion as roughly $28 per $100,000 of fair market value. The committee chair said more work remains before final placement on the ballot, and council members noted the item would need to meet the board-of-elections deadline in early August.
Why it matters: Backers said the levy would advance pedestrian safety and extend the village’s nonmotorized network; opponents questioned whether the village has exhausted grant funding and whether multiple levies should be asked of residents in the same cycle.
A resident who identified himself as Joe urged council not to put the measure before voters, calling the project’s current estimate—mentioned during the meeting as about $1.8 million—too large for the village to fund. He said the proposed one-mile path “goes to nowhere” and asked whether those tax dollars might instead buy other capital needs such as equipment.
Council members responded during the discussion that the proposed improvements would “get the kids off the road and the walkers off the road” and that the project would connect roughly half the village by creating safer pedestrian links. Several council members said they were uneasy about the timing because the village may also ask voters about other levies later this year for police, fire or EMS services.
Procedural next steps: Council held a first reading of the ordinance to place the levy on the ballot at the May 4 meeting; members noted that if council proceeds it will need to finalize language in time for the board of elections filing deadline in early August. No final ballot authorization occurred at the May 4 meeting.
Attribution: A committee member leading the Safe Bicycle and Pedestrian Transport Committee framed the levy proposal in committee discussion; Joe, a resident, raised public objections during the public-comment portion.
